This is a scholarly source because I found it through the library on academic search premiere. Also, the publication is Newsweek which a scholarly magazine.
The source is relevant to my topic because it talks about how technology made the arts possible and how American movies are important to the world.
Summary: What you are really saying here is that Technology improved the art of film and show business has changed with it. I agree with the point that visionary's seemed to believe film would be a perk of the wealthy, but were terrible wrong with the cheap innovation of film through the past century. Your ideas about technology making film more possible and imaginable are interesting because when film first was shown it was considered a phenomenon and opened doors for more ideas to be explored.
Harbord, Janet. The Evolution of Film: Rethinking Film Studies. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2007.
This is a scholarly source because Polity Press has books based on disciplines and the book is available at the British Library.
This source is relevant to my topic because it gives information on film over the the last hundred years, information on the last decade of hollywood, editing and translations of films, along with film in the media and energy of eras.
Summary: What you really seems to be saying here is that film is not what it use to be; technology and culture are main factors. I really like the point about how film is no longer its own genre because the computer and other technologies add to the digital formation of movies rather than just talking film and creating art through emotion and fact in a story line. I agree with you that film is no longer committed to cinema because of the urban and cultural influences. For example, the number of films released when film just began compared to the number of films released today
Hark, Ina Rae. Exhibition, the Film Reader. New York: Routledge, 2002.
This is not a scholarly source because it was published by a publishing company rather than a university publishing press. This relates to my topic because it explains the dynamic views of film from then and now.
Jacobs, Lea. The Decline of Sentiment. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2008.
This is a scholarly source because the University of California Press is a university publisher.
This source is relevant to my topic because it gives information on film based on the early years of the cinema boom. Also it is focused on American Film and the filmography of the early film years.
Summary: What you really seem to be saying here is how film critics changed the art of film. I agree that film responds to the critic's criticism because the way important people in the industry view one's film is important to the film maker due to the power the critic holds over the audience. What do you mean to say when you talk about the taste of film?
Reagan, Leslie J. and Nancy Tomes and Paula A. Treichler. Medicine's Moving Pictures. Rochester: University of Rochester Press, 2007.
It is a Scholarly source because it was published by a university press. This source is relevant because it explains Hollywood through the years and goes into detail on genre, education, and authenticity.
Stephanie Bigelow
Has the quality of art in film changed for the better or worse?
I'm interested in this topic because my father and I bonded by watching films and analyzing different styles and characteristics of film.
Gates, David. "America Goes Hollywood." Newsweek 133.26 (1999) : 34. Print.
Harbord, Janet. The Evolution of Film: Rethinking Film Studies. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2007.
Hark, Ina Rae. Exhibition, the Film Reader. New York: Routledge, 2002.
Jacobs, Lea. The Decline of Sentiment. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2008.
Reagan, Leslie J. and Nancy Tomes and Paula A. Treichler. Medicine's Moving Pictures. Rochester: University of Rochester Press, 2007.